Dodge City times. [volume] (Dodge City, Kan.) 1876-1892, 1887-12-15
KANSAS PROHIBITION.

sas Prohibitory Law.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6-The Supreme
Court OF the United States yesterday gave
decision in the cases Of Jacob Mugler
against the State OF Kansas and the State
against Ziebold. The decision of the lower
court was affirmed in the Mugier cases and
reversed IN the ZiebOld case. The effect
ia to declare valid the Prohibition law in
Kansas. The opinion was by Justice Har-
Ian, who said:
The general question in each case is whethe
the Prohibition statutes OF Kansas IN con.
hict With that clause of the Fourteenth amend
ment which provides that mo State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities Of citizens Of the Uni
ted States nor shall any State deprive any per
son OF life. liberty or property without due pro-
cess of law
That legislation by State prohibiting tho
manufacture within her limits Of intoxicating
liquors, to be resold or bartered for general use
as q beverage, does not necessarily infringe
any right, privilege immunity secured by
the Constitution of the United States is
made clear by the decisions of this court,
rendered before and since the adoption Of
the Fourteenth amendment. 1t is, however,
contended that although the State may pro-
hibit the ma 'ufacture Of Intoxicating liquors
for sale or barter within her limits tor general
use ~ d Ue'er;src, no COHVentlOu HOr Legislature
has the right under our form of Government
TO prohibit any citizen from manufacturing for
his own use or for export or storage any arti-
Gle OF food or drink not endangering aflect-
ing the rights OF others. The argument made
in support of the first branch of this PROPOSE
ton briefly stated is: That in the implied
contracts between the State and the citi-
zen, certain rights are reserved by the latter
which are guaranteed by the constitutional
fOr fho NJ 70 EherYy
property against deprivation without due pro-
cess OF law and with which the State can not
interfere; that among those rights is that OF
manufacturing for ones own use Of either food
or drink; that, while according to the doctrines
of the commune, the State may control the
tastes appetites, habits. dress, food and drink
of the citizen, our system Of Government,
based upon the individuality and intelligence
of the people, does not claim to control him ex-
cept as TO his conduct to others. leaving him the
sole judge as to all that only effects himself.
1t will be observed that the proposition and
the argument made in support of it equally
concede that the right to manufacture drink
for ones personal use is subject to the copdi.
ton that such manufacture does not endan.
ger or affect the rights of others. if such
manufacture does preiudicially affect the
rights and interests of the community, it fol
lows from the very premises stated by coun.
sci that society has the power to protect
itself by legislation against the injurious CON
sequences of that business
But by whom or by what authority is it 10 he
determined whether the manufacture Of partc.
ular articles of drink. either for general OF
for the personal use of the maker, will injurious
ly affect the public. Power to determine such
questions, SO as to bind all, must exist some
where else society will be at the mercy of the
few who, regarding only their own appe-
tites or passions. may be willing &c
imperil the peace and security of the
many, provided they are permitted
to do as they please. Under system that
power is lodged with the legislative branches
of the Government. 1t belongs to that depart
ment to exert what are known as the police
powers of the State. 1t must determine priri.
arily what measures are appropriate and need.
full for the protection of the public morals, the
public health or the public safety.
AS the courts must obey the Constitution
rather than the law-making department of Gov
eminent. it must, upon its responsibility, de-
termine whether in any particular case these
limits have been passe =. The courts are not
bound by mere forms. nor are they to be miSled
by mere pretenses. They arc at liberty-in.
deed, are under solemn duty-to look ut the
substance Of things whenever they enter upon
the inquiry whether the Legislature has trans
cended the limits OF its authority. If, there
fore. q statute purporting to have been enacted
to protect the public health, the public morals
OR the public safety. has no real or substantial
relation to those objects, or is a palpable inva
sion of rights secured by the fundamental law,
it is tine duty of the courts to so adjudge, and
thereby give effect to the Constitution.
Keeping in view these principles. as govern
ing the relations with each other of the judicial
and legislative departments of the Government.
it is difficult to perceive any ground for the ju-
dietary to declare that the prohibition by Kan.
off bn ,fpp howl re
of Intoxicating liquors for general use there as
beverage is not fairly adapted to the end OF
protecting the community against the evils
which confessedly result from the excessive
use of ardent spirits. There is here no justiii-
cation for holding that the State, under the
guise merely of police regulations. is aiming to
deprive the citizen of his constitutional rights.
If, therefore. State deems the absolute pro-
hibiton of the manufacture and sale within hel
limits OF intoxicating liquors for other than
medical, scientific and manufacturing purposes,
to be necessary to the peace and security of So
ciety, the courts can not, without usurpng leg.
islative functions, override the will Of the PEP
pie as thus expressed by their chosen repre-.
sentatives. 1t is fundamental principle in oui
institutions, Indispensable to the preservation
of public liberty that one of the separate dc.
partments of Government shall not usurp pow.
ers committed by the Constitution to another
department.
With reference to the assertion that the pro-
hibitlon of the manufacture and sale of liquor
deprives liquor dealers Of their property with
out due process Of law. the court says that all
property under the American form OF govern
ment is subject to the obligation that it shall be
used SO as not to injurously affect the rights OF
the community and thereby become nuisance.
The State OF Kansas had right to prohibit the
liquor traffic. 1t did not thereby take away the
property of the brewers. 1t simply abated
q nuisance.
For the reason stated, says Justice Harlan, |
we are of opinion that Mugler, the plaintiff
in error, has not been denied by the judy F,
ment Of the Supreme Court of Kansas any !
right, privilege or immunity secured to him |
by the Constitution of the United States. and !
its judgment in each case is accordingly az |
frmed. We are also Of opinion that the Cir |
cult Court OF the United Staes erred in dis |
missing the bill. the bill Of the State in her !
suit against Ziebold and Hagelin. The decree |
in that case is reversed and the cause remand. |
ed. with directions to enter a decree granting to
the State such relief the act OF March :, 1881,
authorizes
Justice Field concurred in the opinion as |
it related to the two cases in which the
State of Kansas was defendant, but dis
scented as to the case Of the State OF Kansas
against Ziebold. He agreed, he said, to SC
much OF the opinion as sustained inc va
lidity OF the act of Kansas prohibiting the
sale OF intOxicants which were manufact-
ured IN the State after the passage OF the
act. He was not prepared, however, to say
that the prohibition Of the manufacture Of
such liquors, if intended for expectation,
could be sustained, nor that the State could
forbid the sale under regulations for the
protection of health and morals of the peo-
pie of any article which Congress might au-
thorize to be imported. He was not ready to
admit that New York or any other Coast
State could defeat an act OF Congress. Mel